Lyons: Forget the "Walmart" name and look at the plan

Published: Saturday, January 5, 2013 at 5:09 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, January 5, 2013 at 5:09 p.m.

Almost everyone has an opinion on Walmart, and especially on how near to their homes they want one, or don’t.

Long-time city employee Mike Taylor doesn’t even want to hear it.

He says the name “Walmart” on the planned big box store that won site-plan approval from Sarasota’s Planning Board can have nothing to with his testimony. He’d prefer everyone talking about the site plan east of Payne Park on Ringling Blvd. not even name the company. As a city planner with decades of experience dealing with zoning code nuances, Taylor says the business name just clutters up the issue with personal impressions of America’s biggest retailer, good or bad.

The debate, he insists, should be strictly about the nuts and bolts of Sarasota’s zoning code.

It would be hard to find anyone who knows the code better. Taylor wrote the book, more-or-less literally. He led the team in the mid 1990s that reworked and much modified the city’s code, which had been in place since 1974.

Though the city code book is one few have ever read all the way through, Taylor, who retired from his city position just weeks ago, says he not only read it but wrote and edited or at least typed every word.

So what does Taylor say about the planned and approved Walmart store’s compliance with that code?

He says no matter the company involved, the rules are crystal clear for the site on Ringling Blvd. He says his unwavering opinion barely counts as opinion as the key rule isn’t at all ambiguous.

Here it is:

No new store building anywhere near the size of the just-approved 98,000-square-foot Walmart SuperCenter can be allowed at that site. The Planning Board’s 3-2 vote to approve it was, at best, a blatant error.

“You simply can’t do that,” Taylor said.

A large box store might be code compliant if it moved into the existing shopping center there, which includes a long-closed Publix. It has been there since before 1974, so it is grandfathered in.

A box store could even substantially rebuild on the same footprint.

But the plan to raze the existing shopping center and build a new store with a new footprint elsewhere on the site? That takes away the grandfathered status, which means the current building code’s restrictions have to be met.

No doubt about it, he says.

Could Taylor be wrong? I suppose. What do I know?

But here’s the point: The City Commission is supposed to decide Monday whether to hold an appeal hearing on this, as requested by the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association and others, including former city commissioner Kelly Kirschner. When I first learned of the request, I wondered if the commission would duck the issue by refusing to have a hearing.

City Attorney Fornier has advised that it can do so if commissioners want to. He says it would require at least a 4-1 vote to have the hearing. Just two “no” votes means no hearing.

But after taking to Taylor and reading a report he has supplied to the city, I have a hard time imagining how commissioners could even pretend to be acting with respect for the city’s own codes and procedures if it refuses to hold a hearing.

City commissioners delegate a lot of authority to the Planning Board. That saves them a lot of headaches.

What they can’t delegate is responsibility for making sure the board’s decisions comply with city rules rather than whims and personal preferences.

Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.

<p>Almost everyone has an opinion on Walmart, and especially on how near to their homes they want one, or don't.</p><p>Long-time city employee Mike Taylor doesn't even want to hear it. </p><p>He says the name “Walmart” on the planned big box store that won site-plan approval from Sarasota's Planning Board can have nothing to with his testimony. He'd prefer everyone talking about the site plan east of Payne Park on Ringling Blvd. not even name the company. As a city planner with decades of experience dealing with zoning code nuances, Taylor says the business name just clutters up the issue with personal impressions of America's biggest retailer, good or bad.</p><p>The debate, he insists, should be strictly about the nuts and bolts of Sarasota's zoning code.</p><p>It would be hard to find anyone who knows the code better. Taylor wrote the book, more-or-less literally. He led the team in the mid 1990s that reworked and much modified the city's code, which had been in place since 1974.</p><p>City attorney Bob Fournier says he couldn't challenge Taylor's credentials.</p><p>“He's testified in court cases for me,” Fournier said.</p><p>Though the city code book is one few have ever read all the way through, Taylor, who retired from his city position just weeks ago, says he not only read it but wrote and edited or at least typed every word.</p><p>So what does Taylor say about the planned and approved Walmart store's compliance with that code?</p><p>He says no matter the company involved, the rules are crystal clear for the site on Ringling Blvd. He says his unwavering opinion barely counts as opinion as the key rule isn't at all ambiguous.</p><p>Here it is:</p><p>No new store building anywhere near the size of the just-approved 98,000-square-foot Walmart SuperCenter can be allowed at that site. The Planning Board's 3-2 vote to approve it was, at best, a blatant error.</p><p>“You simply can't do that,” Taylor said.</p><p>A large box store might be code compliant if it moved into the existing shopping center there, which includes a long-closed Publix. It has been there since before 1974, so it is grandfathered in. </p><p>A box store could even substantially rebuild on the same footprint. </p><p>But the plan to raze the existing shopping center and build a new store with a new footprint elsewhere on the site? That takes away the grandfathered status, which means the current building code's restrictions have to be met.</p><p>No doubt about it, he says.</p><p>Could Taylor be wrong? I suppose. What do I know?</p><p>But here's the point: The City Commission is supposed to decide Monday whether to hold an appeal hearing on this, as requested by the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association and others, including former city commissioner Kelly Kirschner. When I first learned of the request, I wondered if the commission would duck the issue by refusing to have a hearing. </p><p>City Attorney Fornier has advised that it can do so if commissioners want to. He says it would require at least a 4-1 vote to have the hearing. Just two “no” votes means no hearing.</p><p>But after taking to Taylor and reading a report he has supplied to the city, I have a hard time imagining how commissioners could even pretend to be acting with respect for the city's own codes and procedures if it refuses to hold a hearing. </p><p>City commissioners delegate a lot of authority to the Planning Board. That saves them a lot of headaches. </p><p>What they can't delegate is responsibility for making sure the board's decisions comply with city rules rather than whims and personal preferences.</p><p>Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.</p>